CRM vs CSCO Stock Comparison
Salesforce, Inc. vs Cisco Systems, Inc.
CRM leads
CRM leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from CSCO. Wall Street currently favors CSCO on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CRM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Salesforce, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRM over CSCO, 64 versus 53 as of Sep 2, 2026. CRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while CSCO holds the stronger quality profile. CRM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CSCO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CRM lead: Reversed — CSCO led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRM now leads by 11.
Compare Salesforce, Inc. and Cisco Systems, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum25%81 vs 31CRM +50
- Value30%69 vs 49CRM +20
- Quality30%57 vs 74CSCO +17
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 55CSCO +16
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CRM. CRM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; CSCO keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CRM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRM and CSCO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRM (Salesforce, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
CSCO (Cisco Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
CRMCRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CSCOCSCO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRMCRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
CRMCRM on the Momentum factor, by 50 points.
Lower downside
CSCOCSCO on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
CSCOCSCO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CRM, analyst targets favor CSCO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRM | CSCO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.6% | +20% | CSCO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.7% | +30.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRM | 64 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 16.8% vs 15.3%; ROE 14.9% vs 25.1%; gross margin 77.6% vs 64.3%; operating margin 21.9% vs 23.4% |
| Valuation | CRM | Value 69 vs 49 |
| Technicals | CRM | Price vs 50-day 39.5% vs -5.8%; vs 200-day 27.6% vs 17.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CSCO | Risk Resilience 39 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | CSCO | Target upside 2.6% vs 20% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRM and CSCO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CRM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1CRM lead: Reversed — CSCO led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRM now leads by 11.
- Today
- CRM +11
- 64 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- CRM +11
- 64 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- CSCO +3
- 63 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- CSCO +8
- 48 vs 56
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when CRM moved ahead of CSCO.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
3 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.50%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.38%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CRM leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.11%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.12%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1CSCO closes the Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRM's edge.
- 2CSCO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | CRM | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.6% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.8% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 77.6% | 64.3% |
| Operating margin | 21.9% | 23.4% |
| Return on equity | 14.9% | 25.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.22 | 0.64 |
Technicals
CRM has the stronger structure| Metric | CRM | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.8 | 32 |
| ADX (14) | 30.6 | 23 |
| Price vs 50-day | 39.5% | -5.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 27.6% | 17.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 66.4% | 40.4% |
Risk
CSCO is the more resilient| Metric | CRM | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 1.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.17 | 1.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.3 | 1.85 |
| Max drawdown | -43.6% | -15.7% |
| Current drawdown | -3.3% | -15% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.4% | 33.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRM or CSCO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 64 against CSCO's 53. The edge comes from momentum and value. CSCO is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is CRM or CSCO the better buy right now?
CRM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRM over CSCO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CRM leads Momentum by 50 points; CRM leads Value by 20 points; CSCO leads Quality by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRM or CSCO?
Analyst price targets imply +2.6% upside for CRM and +20% for CSCO, so the Street currently favors CSCO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CRM. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CRM or CSCO?
CRM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, CRM or CSCO?
CSCO on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, CRM or CSCO?
CRM on the Momentum factor, by 50 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, CRM or CSCO?
CSCO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSCO on Risk Resilience, by 16 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CRM more profitable than CSCO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 77.6% vs 64.3%; operating margin 21.9% vs 23.4%; roe 14.9% vs 25.1%. CRM leads on one measure and CSCO on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is CRM's lead over CSCO getting stronger or weaker?
CRM lead: Reversed — CSCO led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRM now leads by 11. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when CRM moved ahead of CSCO.
What would change the CRM vs CSCO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CSCO closes the Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRM's edge; CSCO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CRM and CSCO?
CRM: 3 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CSCO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on CRM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CSCO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRM and CSCO with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.